16 minutes ago, jcomm said:

The bouncing aircraft in MFS look, most of the time, way overdone to me, and believe me my 42 yrs of soaring have given me quite a good idea of what bouncing can be...

I don't agree. This video suggests, that real 172s even bounce a lot more than the MSFS one (don't know about the turbulences at that day though):

https://youtu.be/QPlPKtXVwcw?t=559

Likewise, this video at a calm winter day (calm due to the glassy water surfaces earlier in the video):

https://youtu.be/WYm-oYoKPFU?t=163

Compared to the real one, the MSFS bounces not enough imho and XP moves like on-rails.

12 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

I don't agree. This video suggests, that real 172s even bounce a lot more than the MSFS one (don't know about the turbulences at that day though):

https://youtu.be/QPlPKtXVwcw?t=559

Likewise, this video at a calm winter day (calm due to the glassy water surfaces earlier in the video):

https://youtu.be/WYm-oYoKPFU?t=163

Compared to the real one, the MSFS bounces not enough imho and XP moves like on-rails.

I will be able to offer my thoughts only after trying XP12... Meanwhile my references are RL glider flying vs MFS glider flying, and the bouncing is "strange" to say the least, overdone most of the time and causing a very fast woobling that is not realistic while other times indeed it's underdone, but you can't really notice because the experience in the real thing acts sometimes more in the asymmetric rise of the wing tips than in the way it happens in MFS.

I will surely offer my observations when I get the chance to try XP12. Since I will use both platforms, like both platforms, want both to be a success I just hope people don't see me as a troll ... I'm a twin-troll 🙂

21 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

That said, Austin & co always go out of their way to brag about their flight modelling so one would think they'd do a better job with at least some of their default birds

Here here. I've had that same thought many times. Sometimes I think it's intended to trigger community effort? Maybe he's letting the individual contributor who happens to be making the aircraft, tune the flight model instead of doing it himself? Dunno.

Here's the thing about Asobo's model: we know a significant level of detail about the internal workings. To their full credit, the SDK is rather detailed. I don't need to see accelerometer data from a flight data recorder to see where the model is going to fall short. We can see the equations and read their descriptions of the nuts and bolts. There are some huge head-scratchers in there. Stuff that fully explains why the model is going to feel just OK at best.

And I'm not talking about stuff that sounds like "XP needs additional surfaces to simulate fuselage drag", which has been true (though 12 has changed some of that: e.g. C172 side slip to landing is improved). I'm talking fundamentals that explain why PMDG apparently has to inject significant motion adjustments to make it act the way it does. If that is the case, and I have every reason to believe it is, are they really using the FS2020 flight model anymore? Haven't they essentially written their own? I'm all ears on how much they've changed things, because the equations in the SDK beg some questions.

Now, PMDG have apparently done a fantastic job and I recently watched flightdeck2sim's assessment of the Zibo in 12. It's not great. It's still waiting for its tweaks. And he even avoided doing the traditional roll-yaw coupling test that he's highlighted in the past in PMDG. Probably because he knows Zibo will fail right now!

So in a discussion about which flight model is more accurate, knowing that both models require tweaking and both will eventually hit many of the numbers, the question becomes, what kind of tweaks were needed? Which model provides the most physically-consistent baseline?

31 minutes ago, jcomm said:

glider flying vs MFS glider flying, and the bouncing is "strange" to say the least,

The sim does not support gliders natively tho. Same goes for helicopters and I'm sure you've seen the amazing progress Asobo is making on that front. You might want to pause judgement on that till November.

3 minutes ago, Krakin said:

The sim does not support gliders natively tho. Same goes for helicopters and I'm sure you've seen the amazing progress Asobo is making on that front. You might want to pause judgement on that till November.

For sure, alas, as much as I will have to wait for better gliders for XP12 after a video I just watched about sideslips in the XP12 AS K-21... 

Honestly it puzzles me how these sims ( FSX/P3D, XP11 and now apparently 12 as well, MFS ) do gliders sooooo poorly 😞

I would expect that the absence of an engine, even more of a prop with all of the associated effects might help making their Flight Dynamics Models shine, but truth is rather the opposite.

Same applies to all of the gliders I tried for Flight Gear.

Still have to take my hat off to Condorsoaring and Silentwings in this area... But I look forward into MFS SU 11 and their upcoming soaring release, including tow planes !

 

8 hours ago, Karelpatch said:

I remember the creator of X-Plane saying that their plane editor was a red flag if it promised you could tweak the values to make it realistic. And I thought he was just jealous, but he was so right...

Considering the issues the Toliss planes are having in XP12 where they're unable to flare at landing speeds, I'd say the creator of X-Plane is full of it.

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

I don't need to see accelerometer data from a flight data recorder to see where the model is going to fall short. We can see the equations and read their descriptions of the nuts and bolts. There are some huge head-scratchers in there. Stuff that fully explains why the model is going to feel just OK at best.

Your are talking about this?

Can you be more precise, what stuff does fully explain, that the model would feel OK at best?

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

I will be able to offer my thoughts only after trying XP12... Meanwhile my references are RL glider flying vs MFS glider flying, and the bouncing is "strange" to say the least, overdone most of the time and causing a very fast woobling that is not realistic while other times indeed it's underdone, but you can't really notice because the experience in the real thing acts sometimes more in the asymmetric rise of the wing tips than in the way it happens in MFS.

I will surely offer my observations when I get the chance to try XP12. Since I will use both platforms, like both platforms, want both to be a success I just hope people don't see me as a troll ... I'm a twin-troll 🙂

I can't hasty generalize all airplanes base on your glider experience. Airplane stability is embedded within their design and they all vary. You may  heard an expression like "very stable platform" or otherwise. For example. My 182F was 99% more stable than 172P. I used to do all my instrument proficiency in 182 because it was way easier. Cherokee notoriously more stable than 172 and bounce less, but in turn Pipers more susceptible with ground effect due to low wing. There could be multiple example of many airframes difference in halnding especially during turbulence.

Back in my days in XP11 Cessna 172 had always very heavy feel. But it reality 172 notoriously bouncy and flaky even during take off run. It's not unheard of to give less than half rudder deflection during take of run and if not careful skid 172 on the ground. Once I even witnessed 172 flipped upside down  during practice touch and go! Student student pilot stepped on brakes during touch down unaware of damaged tire on the second round of landing overcompensated rudder skid airplane and flipped .

 In personal opinion even with  imperfections stock MSFS 172 is more appeal to me than stock 172 in XP11. I don't how things change in XP12. I would give XP12 a spin. But frankly I neither have an extra time for another sim nor enough space on my SSD. Plus investing in both sims will become very expensive LOL Gotta choose one over another! I'll stick to MSFS

11 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I can't hasty generalize all airplanes base on your glider experience. Airplane stability is embedded within their design and they all vary. You may  heard an expression like "very stable platform" or otherwise. For example. My 182F was 99% more stable than 172P. I used to do all my instrument proficiency in 182 because it was way easier. Cherokee notoriously more stable than 172 and bounce less, but in turn Pipers more susceptible with ground effect due to low wing. There could be multiple example of many airframes difference in halnding especially during turbulence.

Back in my days in XP11 Cessna 172 had always very heavy feel. But it reality 172 notoriously bouncy and flaky even during take off run. It's not unheard of to give less than half rudder deflection during take of run and if not careful skid 172 on the ground. Once I even witnessed 172 flipped upside down  during practice touch and go! Student student pilot stepped on brakes during touch down unaware of damaged tire on the second round of landing overcompensated rudder skid airplane and flipped .

 In personal opinion even with  imperfections stock MSFS 172 is more appeal to me than stock 172 in XP11. I don't how things change in XP12. I would give XP12 a spin. But frankly I neither have an extra time for another sim nor enough space on my SSD. Plus investing in both sims will become very expensive LOL Gotta choose one over another! I'll stick to MSFS

Thanks for your great insights @sd_flyer. I have read enough opinions from real life 172 pilots, including you, to come to a conclusion that the MSFS flight model is just as good as the XP flight model, if the aircraft is tuned properly by the developer.

33 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

In personal opinion even with  imperfections stock MSFS 172 is more appeal to me than stock 172 in XP11. I don't how things change in XP12. I would give XP12 a spin. But frankly I neither have an extra time for another sim nor enough space on my SSD. Plus investing in both sims will become very expensive LOL Gotta choose one over another! I'll stick to MSFS

As you’re a RW pilot (and an instructor too I believe) I’m sure a lot of us value your opinion on this, as do I. As for myself I did my PPL years ago and I think with all the improvements since launch, and the upcoming features (gusts, soaring, thermals), the flight model in MSFS is very comprehensive.

I too find that using two sims with everything involved is not worth it. And even though I used, and enjoyed XP11 for years before MSFS, I find that after the launch of XP12, I’ve only watched like half a YouTube review, lol. In fact I fell asleep halfway through the review as I watched it in bed…

EDIT: I haven’t read all the posts in this thread. And bringing up X-Plane in this forum is probably unwise (we’ve all seen how threads can derail in a spectacular fashion). But it’s hard not to compare the sims with the recent launch of XP12.

Edited September 8, 20223 yr by Cpt_Piett

4 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

As you’re a RW pilot (and an instructor too I believe) I’m sure a lot of us value your opinion on this, as do I. As for myself I did my PPL years ago and I think with all the improvements since launch, and the upcoming features (gusts, soaring, thermals), the flight model in MSFS is very comprehensive.

I too find that using two sims with everything involved is not worth it. And even though I used, and enjoyed XP11 for years before MSFS, I find that even after the launch, I’ve only watched like half a YouTube review, lol. Just not interested in it anymore I guess.

I agree with you.  TBH, if there is a holy grail of flight simulation for the hardware technology that will be available over the next decade, I think MSFS will get there before XP will. Looking at how little XP progressed from XP 11 to XP 12, I have no faith that XP will advance flight simulation much over the next decade.  MSFS however, if they advance the flight model further, and fix the ground handling, which I don't think will take nearly as long as XP getting up to MSFS's level of graphics (plus the satellite/photogrammetry data, I don't know how XP will get that), MSFS will be much closer to the holy grail of flight simulation than XP will (given the hardware limitations over the next decade, of course).

1 minute ago, abrams_tank said:

MSFS however, if they advance the flight model further, and fix the ground handling, which I don't think will take nearly as long as XP getting up to MSFS's level of graphics (plus the satellite/photogrammetry data, I don't know how XP will get that), MSFS will be much closer to the holy grail of flight simulation than XP will (given the hardware limitations over the next decade, of course).

Yes. And with Mr. Meyers’s (even condescending) statements on orthoscenery, I doubt we’ll ever see that implemented in XP as long as he’s in charge.

4 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Using something like MSFS SU9 or the soon-to-be-released SU10 along with a Milviz C310 and one or both of PMDG 737& Fenix A320 gives you a flight simulation package and experience that is compelling unlike any other currently out there for covering both GA and tubeliner needs.

Really??

And you say that based on what experiments??  your own?? highly doubt it!!

So you heard someone saying on some twitch stream that this or that addon is the best thing since sliced bread and you take that for gospel? 

If you had any experience in aviation you'd know that wherever there are two pilots there are three different opinions. Opinions in that context are worthless if you can't back it up with data against the POH and I've done exactly that with the two addons that are considered the flagships of MSFS. 

instead of endless adjectives to belittle fellow posters, and long and tedious cut/paste why don't you show some data to support your case? 

 

41 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Really?? .... <bla bla bla>

Yawn... you seem to be always highly triggered when positive stuff is said about MSFS, especially about the Fenix/PMDG/Milviz aircrafts (gee I wonder why). Well, keep complaining tediously I guess, and demanding for "data".  I fly all three in MSFS, and consider them pretty word not allowed good, and I've flown numerous 3rd party add-ons in FSX, P3D, XP during many years of simming... I suppose saying just that much will probably trigger you more, but oh well 🙂

Edited September 8, 20223 yr by lwt1971

5 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

In my opinion, if someone flies a default C172 in any flight simulator and says it is realistic, they have probably never flown in real life in a C172. 

Fixed it.